SES members hope bill to establish Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund will pass
The controversial bill to establish the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund (ESVF) is expected to return to parliament after it was delayed on Tuesday.
It aims to raise money for fire services, the SES, the state control centre and triple-0.
Unit controller Michael Bagnall said the SES had always been known as the "poor cousin" in emergency services.
He said increased funding would allow volunteers to spend more time responding and less time having to fundraise.
"This levy will allow $30 million over four years for training for volunteers … twice as much money for equipment upgrades, vehicles.
"An emergency services levy, which is similar to what every other state has, is the most equitable and sustainable way that we can see an increase in funding, that would then be guaranteed moving forward."
But it has drawn widespread condemnation from people in rural communities who say they are being unfairly slugged, as the bill would increase the amount some pay by tens of thousands of dollars.
Volunteer firefighters and farmers have staged protests in the regions and on the steps of parliament opposing the levy.
"Our focus has always been on the increased funding, and that is what we've asked for, and hopefully that is what is delivered here.
"How it comes to be and the other pieces of that, you know, it's really not up to us to comment on."
James Kirkpatrick is in the middle of planting his canola crop this week on his family farm near Beaufort, in south-west Victoria.
Taking time away from cropping, Mr Kirkpatrick took a stand during a statewide protest against the ESVF levy on Tuesday with other farming families from the area.
He said farmers in the south west were already doing it tough amid prolonged drought.
"It's been dry since April last year … our canola is germinating, but it really needs a drink," Mr Kirkpatrick said.
"This year there is no soil moisture. Any crop we put in this year is a gamble."
Mr Kirkpatrick was concerned the additional costs from the levy would add to existing financial pressures.
"Farmers from this financial year aren't making a lot of money," he said.
"There could be farmers at the end of their profit and loss reports who may be in the red between $50,000 to $200,000.
"It needs to be an even financial spread. Emergencies don't discriminate, fire affects anyone, any one of us could be in a car accident, we all need these services.
"Why should farmers be so disproportionately forced to pay for something?"
Mr Kirkpatrick's family has been farming for 170 years and he said he would draw a hard line in the sand if the bill passed.
"Why volunteer our time and safety to our state, and risk our safety for the sake of this state, if they are going to be so disrespectful and cruel and bankrupting their country constituents?"
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
29 minutes ago
- ABC News
Off the productivity round table: What won't be discussed this week
Problem and productivity. It's a pairing that has become inseparable in recent times, given our productivity growth is the lowest in half a century. It'll also be a major point of discussion at the Economic Reform Roundtable that kicked off in Canberra this week. For a while, it appeared the entire forum would be devoted to the topic with our best and brightest assembled to nut out a way to address it. But solutions generally can only be found if we truly understand the root cause of the problem. And that's where things go horribly wrong when it comes to any discussion around labour productivity. A seemingly simple concept — the amount of product produced over a given period of time by the same amount of labour — understanding what drives it can be complex and prone to misinterpretation. And that's before you consider the difficulties in even measuring labour productivity, particularly in an economy such as ours where the vast bulk of workers, instead of churning out easily countable widgets, are providing services to other people. Professor Roy Green from the University of Technology points to Australian manufacturing's demise — which now accounts for just 6 per cent of our GDP — as a major contributor to our productivity conundrum. There is, he says, "an almost exact correlation between the decline of manufacturing, the decline of business expenditure on research and development and the decline of productivity growth, now at its lowest level in almost 60 years". And then there are factors that are totally off the agenda. For such a pointy headed topic, finding answers often involve traversing areas that are socially, culturally and politically explosive. In many cases, economists — fearing a community backlash — refuse to even mention some of the more obvious topics that have a legitimate bearing on productivity. That involves two other P-words: population and property. Many business leaders and most politicians confuse productivity with profitability. There's a common misconception that, if only we could keep wages in check, our labour productivity problems could fix themselves. True, there's a link between wages and how much we produce but, even then, it's not completely understood. If lower wages were the key to better productivity, company executives should have penalties imposed for underperformance rather than bonuses for turning up. Reserve Bank governor Michele Bullock lamented last week's decision to downgrade its labour productivity forecasts for the nation, a move that sent headline writers into a frenzy. Rising productivity, she said, lifts living standards as it provides the scope for workers to earn higher wages without putting pressure on inflation. But there's a catch. Businesses need to invest in new technology to help workers lift productivity. And they'll only do that if wages are rising, so they can reduce costs and boost profit. So, what comes first? Do higher wages lead to better productivity? Or does better productivity lead to higher wages? Just between us, no-one really knows. Luckly for the RBA governor, she declared it well and truly outside her remit. "All the Reserve Bank can do is make sure we have low and stable inflation, and if we have full employment, both of those things are very stable environments for businesses to think about how they might improve productivity, how they might produce more for the same amount of labour and capital input," she said. Once upon a time, there was no such thing as an automated carwash. You either did it yourself or paid people to do it by hand. When the first auto washing machine opened in Australia in 1968, it sparked what should have been a trend to lay waste to the old style, expensive hand washing. Cheaper and quicker, with minimal labour input, it's a perfect example of a productivity improvement. But in the past 20 years, there's been a resurgence in car hand washing operations. You'll find them everywhere, in shopping centre car parks and on highway corners. Why? Perhaps hand washing delivers a superior finish. But the biggest factor may well be that hand washing comes at a competitive price because labour costs are no longer prohibitive. Regardless of the reason, it's a negative for our productivity numbers. Sydney University academic Salvatore Babones penned an interesting piece in the Australian Financial Review this week, sheeting home the blame for our tardy performance in labour productivity to our surging population growth. Most new arrivals, he points out, are not highly skilled, nor are they permanent. "Massive influxes of low-skilled workers are obvious drivers of trends in labour productivity," he wrote. "But they're not even mentioned in recent Reserve Bank of Australia and Productivity Commission reports." Only around half the 1 million students — who make up about 10 per cent of the workforce — in Australia attend a university. The rest are in courses primarily designed to deliver a working visa. The huge influx has artificially kept GDP numbers elevated. But it's been at the expense of productivity. In those proportions, they act as a cheap source of labour which, when combined with a rigid wage setting system, maintains a lid on wages growth, and dampens the incentive for businesses to invest. "If you flood the labour market with low-skilled immigrants, real wages (adjusted for inflation) will fall, and productivity will decline as labour is used less efficiently," he wrote. "It's that simple." As Babones points out, Australia may look down on other countries that exploit cheap, imported labour. But we do the same, under the guise of education visas. As they hunker down in working groups in the national capital this week, the dominant topic for conversation will be tax. There'll be furious debate about cutting the corporate tax rate and increasing the GST. But there is no guarantee either of those measures will lead to increased business investment or improve productivity. That's because businesses that earn bigger profits don't automatically invest the windfall gains. Most of the time they hand it back to shareholders, or at least a large slab of it. Our productivity may be among the worst in the developed world and our business investment woeful. But there is one area where Australians exceed on the investment front. Our obsession with real estate has resulted in a deluge of cash directed into housing. It's why our real estate is so horrifyingly expensive. According to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, as a nation we are in hock to the tune of $2.3 trillion on property mortgages. And that's expected to rise as interest rates ease. More than 2.26 million Australians own an investment property, largely because of favourable tax policies that deliberately direct investment into real estate. It may be a radical idea but altering some of those tax policies, such as negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount, might have two beneficial impacts. It may lead to more affordable housing in the future. And it might result in resources being better allocated to more productive means. Just don't mention it in Canberra this week.
ABC News
29 minutes ago
- ABC News
Israeli MP at centre of Australian visa row, Simcha Rothman, says choice is Israel or Hamas
Far-right Israeli politician Simcha Rothman has told the ABC that Australia needs to "decide to be on the side of Hamas … or Israel", in the wake of his visa being cancelled and Israel's decision to revoke visas for Australia's representatives to the Palestinian Authority (PA). The visa cancellations are the clearest sign of building tensions between Australia and Israel, after Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that Australia would recognise a Palestinian state at next month's UN General Assembly. The visa revocation for Australia's representatives to the Palestinian Authority comes partially in retaliation to Australia's decision to cancel Mr Rothman's visa for an upcoming series of appearances at Australian synagogues and Jewish schools, hosted by the Australian Jewish Association (AJA). Late on Monday evening, Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar, said his decision followed a "backdrop" of Australia's decision to recognise a Palestinian state and the "unjustified refusal" to grant Mr Rothman's visa — claiming the Australian government was choosing to fuel antisemitism. Australia's Foreign Minister Penny Wong has called it an "unjustified reaction, following Australia's decision to recognise Palestine". "At a time when dialogue and diplomacy are needed more than ever, the Netanyahu government is isolating Israel and undermining international efforts towards peace and a two-state solution," Senator Wong said in a statement. "We will continue to work with partners as we contribute international momentum to a two-state solution, a ceasefire in Gaza and release of the hostages. "The Australian government will always take decisive action against antisemitism." In a statement, the Palestinian Authority's foreign affairs ministry said it condemned "in the strongest terms the arbitrary measure". "The ministry considers this measure illegal and in violation of the Geneva Conventions, international law, and United Nations resolutions, which do not grant the occupying power such authority," it said. "It stresses that such actions reflect Israeli arrogance and a state of political imbalance, and will only strengthen Australia's and other countries' determination to uphold international law, the two-state solution, and recognition of the State of Palestine as the path to peace." In an interview with the ABC, Mr Rothman said Mr Sa'ar's decision is a "great response". "I think the government of Australia needs to decide, do they want to be on the side of Hamas, or do they want to be on the side of Israel?" The ABC has seen the letter revoking Mr Rothman's visa, which said he had the potential to use the events he would be participating in to "promote his controversial views and ideologies, which may lead to fostering division in the community". The letter cites examples of Mr Rothman claiming that children were not dying of hunger in Gaza, that those children were Israel's enemies, and that the idea of a two-state solution had "poisoned the minds of the entire world". The decision states that "his presence in Australia would or might be a risk to the good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community, namely the Islamic population". It added that "given his inflammatory statements, that likely public knowledge that [Mr Rothman] had entered Australia with the government's permission may encourage others to feel emboldened to voice any anti-Islamic sentiments, if not to take action to give effect to that prejudice." But Mr Rothman insisted he was being blocked from entering Australia only because he said, "Hamas is bad, and Israel is good." When asked if Mr Rothman conceded his views and voting record was at odds with Australia's foreign policy, he said he felt the Australian government was "afraid of open discourse about its policies". "That's usually defining dictatorships," he said. "… It's not a democratic way to go and that's why, despite the fact that the Australian government is so afraid of hate and division, they allowed people to shout on the streets calls for genocide of the Jewish people." In a tense interview with the ABC, Mr Rothman repeatedly denied there was a starvation crisis in Gaza, blaming Hamas for any hunger, and repeated claims published in a conservative American news website that the United Nations had changed the definition of starvation to launch political attacks against Israel. He also denied US President Donald Trump had said starvation was present, despite the US president's repeated references to the scenes of desperation in Gaza being hard to "fake". Mr Rothman is a member of the National Religious Party — Religious Zionism, which is led by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotritch. The party leader has been sanctioned by Australia and other countries, including the UK, over accusations of inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Mr Rothman repeatedly corrected the ABC when asked questions about the West Bank, refusing to acknowledge that as its name and instead insisting it be called Judea and Samaria — its biblical name. He also took issue with references to the Australian government using the term "Occupied Palestinian Territories" to describe the West Bank and Gaza. Mr Rothman's visa cancellation is not the first time Australia has denied entry to an Israeli politician. Former justice minister Ayalet Shaked was denied a visa in November last year, with Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke saying it was "over concerns she would threaten social cohesion". The ABC understands Israel's decision on Australia diplomatic visas may only affect two staff.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Productivity summit begins with a warning on NDIS spending
Treasurer Jim Chalmers says this week's productivity round table will be about writing "the next chapter of economic reform" as he calls on business leaders, union chiefs and advocates attending the summit to provide "concrete ideas" that help the Albanese government turbocharge the economy. Opening the three-day event in Canberra, Mr Chalmers will urge participants to focus on three objectives: making the economy more productive to lift living standards, measures to sandbag Australia's economy and repairing the budget. "Global uncertainty surrounds us, big economic challenges confront us, and our ambitions must meet this moment," he is expected to say. "Our progress in the near term … gives us the time and space to attend to the bigger, more persistent structural issues." The treasurer will point to pressures in energy, demography, technology and geopolitics, warning that Australia must act despite global instability. "We are realistic about the impact of all of this but optimistic too," he will say. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is set to loom large over the summit, with Thursday's session on budget sustainability and tax reform expected to examine its rapidly escalating cost. That conversation will come a day after Health Minister Mark Butler is expected to make a significant policy announcement on Wednesday aimed at tightening elements of the disability insurance scheme amid reports that 16 per cent of six-year-old boys are now recipients. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Monday flagged the need for reform, citing concerns about its growth trajectory. "We need to make sure the system's sustainable," he told Sky News. He added that reforms passed last year to rein in NDIS spending growth to 8 per cent was an "interim target", with that growth rate still well outpacing broader GDP growth. With annual costs projected to surpass $64 billion by 2029, the NDIS is on track to become the third most expensive item in the budget, behind only health and aged pensions. The Coalition has signalled it is open to further savings, with Shadow Treasurer Ted O'Brien saying in July the scheme must be made sustainable. The NDIS, as well as defence, debt costs, health and aged care will be among the structural issues up for discussion. In an interview with the ABC, Mr Chalmers framed the productivity discussions as an effort to "work out what additional steps we need to take to make our economy more productive so that we lift living standards over time". He told the ABC his case has been strengthened by the Reserve Bank's downgrade of growth forecasts from 1 per cent to 0.7 per cent last week. "The contribution from the Reserve Bank was confronting but nonetheless welcome because it helps people understand what we're up against," he said. RBA Governor Michele Bullock will address the summit on Tuesday morning. Another looming challenge is how to replace the billions of dollars raised each year from fuel excise as Australians switch from petrol to electric vehicles. A road-user charge is under active consideration, but both the model and timing are yet to be finalised. Government sources told the ABC a likely approach is a tapered model, beginning first with heavy vehicles before being extended more broadly. The aim would be to balance fairness for early adopters with the long-term need to protect the revenue base that funds roads and infrastructure. Mr Chalmers confirmed the issue is on the agenda, but stressed the government is not rushing. "The tax base is going to change dramatically over time … We're in no rush to make changes here. We want to work through the issues in a considered, consultative, methodical way," he said. He added that discussions with state and territory governments have been ongoing since before the election, given their shared reliance on road funding. "We haven't settled a model, we haven't set a time frame. This work will take a lot of time to get right. But a government will address this challenge and we've said we're prepared to grapple with it with our colleagues and that's what we're doing."
